Dan Barker’s Free Will Argument for the Nonexistence of God (FANG)

Dan Barker is a former evangelical, Christian preacher turned zealous atheist. He and his wife, Annie Gaylor, co-preside over the activist atheist group, Freedom From Religion. He also spends a lot of time debating Christians. By the way, in his own words, his apostasy began with a rejection of a historical Adam & Eve and his embracing of evolution – but that will have to be the subject of another post.

Barker has put forward an argument against the existence of God that he calls the Free Will Argument for the Nonexistence of God (which he identifies with the acronym FANG).  I’ve heard other people use this argument but they always give credit to Barker.  I’ve also seen Christian apologists respond to the argument who claim to be responding to “Barker’s” argument.  I've heard similar types of arguments but I’m going to say this particular argument is originally his.

Instead of just saying what his argument is, I’ll cite his own words (source):

The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.

In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.

A being who knows everything can have no “state of uncertainty.” It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.

Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

Barker’s argument reminds me a little of the Omnipotence Paradox people sometimes use to argue that God cannot exist. In that case, critics ask, “Can God make a rock so big that He can't lift it?”  The answer is either yes or no but, either way, it would mean there is something God cannot do so, therefore, an omnipotent God cannot exist. Barker's argument is very much along the same lines and could be described as an Omniscience Paradox. At the end of the day, it's simply another gimmick of logic.

His argument is a tangle of logical fallacies that I’m going to have to sort out.  There’s a straw man, mixed with equivocation, tied up with a non sequitur.  I’ll break them all down here.

Let’s start with the straw man.  Barker said, “The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.”  First, if we had to define God, I doubt any Christian would start with, “a personal being who knows everything.”  Certainly, God is omniscient but that is an attribute of God - not necessarily a defining characteristic.  Also, the term “personal being” is somewhat vague.  I mean humans are personal beings, too, but obviously God is not like a human being.  Furthermore, there is much debate about whether or not humans have free will but I’ll talk about that more in a minute.  

You can already see how Barker is setting up his straw man.  He’s telling us how Christians define God and what we think about free will.  Tsk, tsk.  Since when does an atheist get to say what Christians think of God?  This is also where Barker also starts to equivocate, by changing the definition of God.

Barker continues equivocating by changing the definition of “free will.”  The Cambridge Dictionary defines free will as: the ability to decide what to do independently of any outside influence.  That certainly applies to God.  He is free to act any way He decides and no one or no thing can affect what He purposes.  But according to Barker, “In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future.”  Since when does free will hinge upon not knowing the outcome?  If I jump off a bridge, I’m pretty sure what the outcome would be.  I would still have the choice to jump or not.

Free will is a notoriously thorny subject. One might even ask if humans have free will; Indeed, many have asked that question for centuries. We may have choices but we have little say in the consequences. I could choose not to eat, for example, but then I couldn't choose not to be hungry. I could choose not to breathe, but then I couldn't choose to keep living. 

Sometimes life seems like a game of chess that we’re playing against a better opponent. We might think we are deciding which pieces to move but our decisions are only unavoidable responses to the better moves the other player is making. The game we think we're playing is really the game he is playing and we continuously have fewer and fewer choices until, finally, we have no choices. Checkmate!

As we live day to day, it may seem at any moment like we are free to choose from a near infinite number possibilities, but the consequences of each decision continuously restricts the number of our future options. I could decide to walk to work instead of driving. However, walking takes longer so the decision to walk affects what time I decide to get up in the morning or whether I decide to get to work on time. Do you see what I mean? My future choices are the victims of the consequences of my present choices.

This applies to the theological realm as well.  If God is sovereign, then perhaps I cannot choose to believe or deny Him. Perhaps everything I do is as He has commanded and I can do nothing by my own will.  This debate has raged between Calvinists and Arminians and is outside the scope of this post. Regardless, Barker fails to see how this is a problem for his argument. He is hoisted upon his own petard, if you will, because if humans do not have free will, how is that an argument for their non-existence?  This is where Barker’s argument becomes totally non sequitur.  

If you think about it, it's rather ridiculous to argue that free will must mean making a decision without knowing anything about the outcome.  Barker is essentially saying that since God knows the future, He cannot exist.  What?  Let's reduce this to the absurd: do rocks have free will?  Do rocks exist?  It's rather obvious that free will is not a condition of existence yet that is what Barker argues!

Consider this passage from Isaiah:

Isaiah 46:9-11, Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

The Bible attests that God knows the future. Let me rephrase that: God brings to pass those things He has already purposed. It's not a prediction as though God's some kind of psychic.  He has and has always had the ability to make things any way He wanted and He made them this way. According to Barker, that's proof He doesn't exist. //RKBentley shakes his head//  

Here's a Bible quiz. See if you can identify who is being discussed in this verse:

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (Micah 5:2)

Hmm... a Ruler born in Bethlehem whose going forth has been from eternity. Who could that be? Pretty easy, huh? Let's look at another passage:

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5)

Still too easy? Here's one more:

For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.. (Psalm 22:16-18)

Did you have any trouble identifying the subject of any of those verses? Probably not. It's not hard to identify that it's Jesus who is being discussed in each passage. However, there's something very interesting about these verses that critics of the Bible seldom stop to consider. All of these passages are taken from the Old Testament! These passages that so clearly discuss accurate details of His birth, His passion, and His death, were written hundreds of years before the events actually occurred. Furthermore, these are but a handful of the dozens of Old Testament passages that I could have cited.

Once a thing that God has proclaimed comes to pass, it reveals the sovereignty and authority of God. When Jesus came and fulfilled the prophecies spoken about Him centuries earlier, it established His status as the Messiah. It proved that God is the sovereign Lord of the universe. It proved the things spoken by the prophets were true. It proved the Bible is the word of God.  Knowing the future isn’t an argument that God cannot exist!  Good grief!!  If anything, it proves He exists!

To all the critics who read my blog, let me ask you something: do you deny that the Bible is the word of God? You probably do – otherwise you'd likely be a believer. Even still, you have to admit that what the Lord spoke about Jesus centuries in advance, came to pass in exactly the same way He spoke it. It's proof that He is God and that the Bible is His word. If you're still not convinced, then let me ask you this: when you read the above passages, didn't you think they were talking about Jesus? You can deny it if you'd like but I know you did!

Eternal universe? I’m still not convinced!

I seem to have struck a nerve with a few unbelievers on X.com with my last post (here).  I had given five problems in believing the universe is eternally old and some critics tried to explain why I was wrong.  One skeptic in particular made a brief rebuttal to each point.  Other skeptics chimed in with similar thoughts.  

I don’t normally engage skeptics too much on social media.  It seems like once it starts, it’s hard to end the conversation and it ends up consuming all my time.  Instead, I thought I’d take some of their comments and address them here, in a new post.  Maybe they’ll leave future comments on my blog.

Before getting into their comments, one thing that struck me is that, by criticizing my arguments against an infinitely old universe, I can only assume they are tacitly admitting that the universe is infinitely old.  Once upon a time, some people believed in the Steady State Theory of the universe.  Explainingscience.org describes the theory this way:

[F]or a while the Steady State theory was very popular. This theory was developed in 1948 by Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), Herman Bondi (1919-2005) and Thomas Gold (1920-2004) as an alternative to the Big Bang to explain the origin and expansion of the Universe. At the heart of the Steady State theory is the Perfect Cosmological Principle. This states that the Universe is infinite in extent, infinitely old and, taken as a whole, it is the same in all directions and at all times in the past and at all times in the future.  In other words, the Universe doesn’t evolve or change over time.

We see that the Steady State Theory is an alternative to the Big Bang.  It’s not especially popular anymore and the Big Bang Theory is now the most widely accepted origin story in the secular science community.  Holders to the Steady State Theory are definitely the minority and could be described as fringe.  So, as I read the comments attempting to rebut my five points, I had to ask myself, do these people really believe in an infinitely old universe?  I doubt the critics commenting on my X thread really endorse the Steady State Theory.  I think, instead, they were simply disagreeing with a creationist without realizing they essentially agree with all my points.  Oh the irony!!

The primary critic posting on my thread goes by the handle God Fodder (@PeteAlonSoCrazy).  In his bio is the hash tag, #Atheism, which leads me to believe maybe there’s a bias there.  No worries; I have a bias too.  It’s just nice to know his frame of mind as I read his arguments.  I’m using his points to outline my rebuttal.  

To be fair, due to character limits on X, God Fodder had to keep his rebuttals to a few sentences.  I think he made his points fairly well and I think it’s obvious what he was getting at with all of them.  However, if had been able to write longer responses, he might have made better arguments.  But, these are all I have so they are what I have to work with.

Are we ready, then?  Let’s look at some of the comments.  I will note my points with RKB and his response with GF:

RKB: 1. It's not scientific.

GF: Yes because the origin of the universe is UNKNOWN. God is in the same boat. Not an argument against it.

OK, so on point #1 we are in agreement.  Claiming the universe is eternally old is a faith statement not unlike a religious dogma.  I’ve written before about how some things in science rely on faith and how scientism is a danger to science.  

My pointing out the faith-like assumptions behind believing the universe is infinitely old is meant to disqualify it from being scientific.  People only cling to it because they don’t want to believe in an Eternal Creator.  In a real sense, they are merely using their faith to attack my faith.

By the way, GF also has contradicted an oft used criticism of creationism.  Creationists are often told that creation can’t be true because it’s not scientific!!  So I agree with GF -  just because something isn’t scientific isn’t sufficient to prove it’s not true.

RKB: Entropy

GF: Without knowing the cause of the Big Bang causes this is complete guesswork.  Let me guess, entropy magically does not apply to god? Why?

GF is employing a sort of “you too” response as though it excuses him from explaining why the universe isn’t already in total entropy.  It seems, to me, a tacit admission that an enterally old universe should have reached entropy already but, since God hasn’t reached entropy, then it doesn’t matter.  //RKBentley scratches his head// 

There is nothing in this response - not one thing - that attempts to explain how energy could be eternally old without having reached heat death.  Let me remind the readers, too, that claiming the universe is infinitely old yet still has usable energy is to admit that perpetual motion exists!

Concerning God, entropy is a property of the universe.  It’s an observed part of nature.  God, by definition, is supernatural so I don’t expect the things of nature to apply to Him.  This is like saying, “How could Jesus walk on water?  Does gravity or buoyancy magically not apply to Him?”  

RKB: Time

GF: How does an eternal consciousness experience time?  Eternal god has just as many issues if not more.

More “you too.”  Sigh.  God does not experience time.  Psalm 90:4 tells us of the Lord, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.”  

Time is a property of the universe.  We experience time.  Since God is transcendent and supernatural, therefore, there’s no reason to believe He experiences time like us.  

Again, there’s no rebuttal here.  The inescapable conclusion of the Steady State Theory is that we have arrived here after infinity has already passed!

RKB: Universe is expanding.

GF: So what? It could be in a cycle or big bangs could be repeated.  Why would a god make an expanding universe?  What’s the point?

I see a lot of things wrong with GF’s response.  First, a cycle of bang-crunch-bang-crunch universes is another faith statement (see point #1).  There is no scientific evidence to support it.

Next, this flies in the face of entropy (see point #2).  Imagine a spring that continuously springs out, then contracts again - infinitely!  What, it never runs out of energy?  It’s perpetual motion all over again.

Finally, what about Aristotle’s “First Cause” argument?  GF is simply invoking an infinite regress of bang-crunch events with nothing to start the chain.  It’s turtles all the way down to him!

RKB: Bible

GF: Who care what an ancient story book says?  

Really bad reasoning here.

There are billions of people in the world who care very much about what the Bible says.  Why do you think the Bible is still so popular after more than 2,000 years?  

I believe the Bible for the same reasons I believe anything - I’m convinced that it’s true.  There are myriad reasons I believe it’s true but I’ll have to save that discussion for another time.  To ignore the Bible in favor of a theory that makes literally no sense would indeed be “really bad reasoning”!

Easter Apologetics: Part 2. Defending the Resurrection

Opponents of Christianity often try to attack the faith by pointing out supposed contradictions in the Bible.  It’s a rather futile tactic because I don’t think their conclusion necessarily follows their premise.  What, if one passage of the Bible is wrong then all the Bible is wrong?  If two verses contradict each other, then there is no God?  It just doesn’t make any sense.  

Now, I get that, if the Bible isn’t reliable, then what we can know about God becomes suspect but I hardly see that as proof that God isn’t real, that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, and that our sins can’t be forgiven!  Of course, I am of the opinion that the Bible is 100% accurate and that all criticisms directed at the Bible will disappear with a fair reading of the text.  I was just pointing out that an alleged contradiction, even one which is not easily explained, isn’t proof of anything!

Many examples of alleged contradictions surround the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus: things like, how many women went to the tomb?  What time did they arrive?  How many angels were there?  What did Judas do with the 30 pieces of silver?  How did Judas die?  This Easter season, I thought I’d make a series of posts dealing with the most often used criticisms of the events, and conclude the series with a day by day discussion of what Jesus may have been doing each day during the Passion Week.  

Please keep checking back!

Defending the Resurrection: Where is the Body?

This post doesn’t really deal with contradictions.  Rather, I intend to address the various arguments critics use to attack the Resurrection.  In Matthew 12:38-40, the Pharisees had asked Jesus for a sign to prove His words were from God. Jesus responded that the only sign they would receive would be His resurrection. He said, “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Indeed, Jesus' entire ministry and every promise He made is contingent upon His resurrection. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then every promise He ever made would be dead with Him. 1 Corinthians 15:14 puts it this way, “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

The Pharisees understood how powerful the sign of the resurrection would be. They perhaps understood better than the disciples and when the Resurrection happened, the Pharisees immediately tried to hide it from the world.  They knew that if the people believed Christ rose from the dead, they would believe Jesus' words all the more.  Because the resurrection is such powerful evidence for the divinity of Christ, opponents of Christianity aggressively attempt to deny and discredit it. There are a few standard approaches that unbelievers take to rebut the event of the resurrection. The absent body of Jesus is a silent witness against all of their claims.

You’ve probably heard some or all of my rebuttals to the arguments before.  They’re not mine originally but have been repeated many times, the most widely read being by Lee Stroble.  I still thought it would be productive to sum them up in my own words and have them all listed in one place.  Here we go!

Attempt #1: The disciples lied

An easy criticism is to claim the disciples simply lied about seeing Jesus alive.  This theory defies common sense. Certainly there are some false preachers today who proclaim the gospel only to gain personal wealth. However, in the case of the disciples, they suffered persecution and even death for their preaching. After Jesus' arrest, Peter, out of fear, denied even knowing Him. Later, when directly threatened to stop preaching in the name of Jesus, Peter and John both answered, “But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” (Acts 4:17-20). What could have turned Peter from a coward who denied knowing Jesus into a champion who proclaims Him in the face of persecution? This is not likely if Peter secretly knew the resurrection was a lie! Tradition tells us that all of the apostles except John were martyred for their preaching. Even John was tortured and exiled for his faith. Are there 12 men anywhere who would give up their lives for something they knew to be a lie? Would not even one of them recant to save his own life?

Remember also what they preached: that Jesus was the Way, Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). Would 12 liars with nothing to gain give up their lives to promote the idea that a dead man had been raised and that He was the embodiment of truth?

The Pharisees would have loved to silence any false rumors about the resurrection of Jesus. They could have easily done so by directing people to His tomb. Alas they couldn't. Where was the body?

Attempt #2: The disciples were deluded

Knowing that no one would give his life for something he knew to be a lie, some argue that the disciples might have been this zealous if they simply believed Jesus were alive even if He weren't. The disciples so desperately expected the resurrection that they actually imagined seeing Him. This idea contradicts Scripture, though, because we know that the disciples did not expect Jesus to be resurrected. In fact, when they were first told of the resurrection, they refused to believe, thinking the women were telling “idle tales” (Luke 24:10-11). We have, too, the famous scene of doubting Thomas (John 20:25).

When the disciples did see the risen Savior, it was not a fleeting glimpse. They touched Him. They walked, talked, and ate with Him. He appeared to them on different occasions. 1 Corinthians 15:4-6 even says that He was seen after His resurrection by more than 500 people at once. These events are not possible if the disciples had only imagined seeing Jesus.

Finally, if the disciples had only imagined seeing Jesus alive, that means He was really still dead in the tomb. OK, so where is the body?

Attempt # 3: The wrong tomb

A variation of the “deluded” theory is that the women simply visited the wrong tomb.  The tomb, after all, was gifted at the last minute by Joseph of Arimathaea (Matthew 27:57-60) and the body of Jesus was interred there hastily before the Sabbath began so it’s not implausible that the women weren’t familiar with its location.  

On that Sunday morning, the women could have gone to where they thought the tomb was, but found an empty tomb instead.  In the confusion of an empty tomb where they believed the body of Jesus would be, they simply concluded that He had risen from the dead.  This is in spite of the fact that, as Mary sat weeping at the empty tomb, John 20:13 tells us that she believed someone had moved the body - not that Jesus had been raised from the dead.  Besides that, though, this criticism fails in many of the same ways as the delusion theory.  It doesn’t explain, for example, Jesus’ many appearances to His disciples after the crucifixion.  

And, of course, there’s the most glaring flaw in this theory, that if the women had visited the wrong tomb, the body of Jesus would still be lying in Joseph’s tomb, right?  The Romans or Pharisees could have simply directed people to the correct tomb and say, “See! Here He is!”  But they couldn’t, because it was the correct tomb and where was the body?!

Attempt #4: The swoon theory

Some people have argued that Jesus did not actually die on the cross. Rather, He merely fainted or swooned and He was mistaken for being dead. Later, in the cool air of the tomb, He was revived and came out. When His disciples saw Him, they believed He rose from the dead.  Seriously!  Some people say this!  Excuse me while I laugh my head off.

This story is hardly credible. It fails to address many critical details given in the text of the gospels. Remember that before the crucifixion, Jesus was beaten and scourged. Witnesses to the crucifixion confirm that He died on the cross (Mark 15:39, John 19:30,35). After He died on the cross, a soldier pierced the side of Jesus to confirm He was dead (John 19:34) - modern doctors believe that the description in John indicates the soldier pierced His heart. Finally, a Roman Centurion, acting on Pilate's orders, examined the body of Jesus to confirm He was dead (Mark 15:44-45). It is simply not possible for someone to be tortured, crucified, stabbed in the heart, be examined by a Roman Centurion, and still not be dead.

Let's assume for a moment the highly impossible idea that Jesus truly didn't die on the cross. The cool air that would have been in the tomb certainly would not have revived Him. People who experience shock or blood loss need to be warmed! Why do you think they put blankets on victims of shock? Yet even assuming He did revive in the tomb, what next? In His condition could He have moved the stone?  Remember, it was so large that the women weren’t sure if the few of them together could do it.  Then what?  Could He have overcome the Roman guard, walked a few miles into town, and still appear ruddy enough to convince His disciples of some glorious resurrection?  //RKBentley still laughing//

The swoon theory borders on the desperate. Keep in mind too that even if all of these outrageous imaginations were possible, Jesus would have eventually died anyway. So there is still that one pesky detail - where is the body?

Attempt #5: The Resurrection is a myth

Today, perhaps the most common way people deny the resurrection is to say it is only a myth. The first century Church did not believe Jesus rose from the dead but only believed He was a great teacher. As their adoration for Jesus grew, their recounting of His teachings became exaggerated. Eventually, the claim became that He rose from the dead.

This certainly cannot be true. We unfortunately do not have the original autographs of the New Testament authors but the oldest copies we have already include accounts of the resurrection. Paul’s conversion happened when he saw the Risen Savior on the road to Damascus.  His entire gospel was that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and was raised from the dead on the third day.  To say that the Resurrection never happened would mean that nearly the entire New Testament has been fabricated.

We also have a record from Flavius Josephus, a first century, Jewish historian.  In his work, The Antiquity of the Jews, there is a reference to Jesus (known as the Testimonium Flavianum) that is so remarkable, it is claimed to have been inserted centuries later by some anonymous Christian interloper.  Much could be said about the Testimonium Flavianum but for now, I’m going to cite a less popular and less disputed version of the text:

At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.

So all accounts we have from the earliest sources, all attest to the fact that even the 1st century Church already believed Jesus rose from the dead. To rebut this, critics will argue that the accounts of the resurrection were added to the text in later dates. How convenient for them. Can they please produce the earlier texts that lacked the resurrection accounts? They cannot; they merely assert the resurrection was added later without having any evidence for such.

But regardless of the early written evidence for the resurrection of Jesus let me ask this: If the resurrection of Jesus is a myth, where is the body?

All other tales

From the moment of Christ's resurrection, people have sought to deny it.  Unbelievers will always attempt to discredit the historicity of the resurrection. No argument, though, no matter how imaginative, will ever adequately address the evidence given in the gospels. 

What about the testimonies of first century historians? What about the earliest manuscripts? What about the bold preaching of the apostles? What else can explain all these things except that they are true?

And no lie will ever explain the empty tomb. This Easter, if you should hear one of these myths or some variation on them, ask the critic, “So where is the body?”